TOPICS:

The authors compare and contrast constructive confrontation to
transformative mediation. The approaches employ different
terminologies and address different forms of conflict.
Nonetheless they share the same substantive goal, and their
processes are generally compatible.

ABSTRACT:

Constructive Confrontation

Constructive confrontation is designed to deal with
intractable conflicts. The authors note that conflict itself is
an inevitable element of human life. However, conflict need not
be destructive. The goal of constructive confrontation is to
minimize the destructive elements of conflict, and so foster
conflicts' constructive potential.

The authors approach conflict via a medical analogy. They see
destructive conflict as a pathological process (notice, however,
that conflict itself is not pathological). The constructive
confrontation approach seeks to "cure" the underlying
causes of destructive conflict where possible. Constructive
confrontation takes an incremental, rather than holistic,
approach to destructive conflicts. It examines, diagnoses, and
(it is hoped) treats each aspect of the conflict process
separately.

Continuing in this medical vein, the constructive
confrontation process can be described generally as having three
stages: diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The diagnosis stage
makes use of conflict maps, which lay out the various parties,
issues and positions. In the diagnosis stage, one first seeks to
distinguish core issues from conflict overlays. One then
identifies the destructive conflict dynamics operating at each
level.

In the treatment stage, the practitioner chooses and (when
possible) implements specific remedies. For example,
hostility-provoking insults may be limited bilaterally by setting
communication guidelines, and unilaterally by refraining from
employing insults. Treatment should focus on conflict overlay
problems first.

The next stage is monitoring and follow-up. In this stage the
treatments in place are evaluated for their effectiveness. New
diagnoses may arise. Adjustments to current treatment processes
may be made. This stage emphasizes the ongoing nature of the
constructive confrontation approach.

The authors describe a number of the possible diagnoses which
may be made regarding either overlay or core problems. Overlay
problems include such things as framing problems,
misunderstandings, procedural problems, escalation and
polarization. Core problems include inadequate identification of
strategic options, inaccurate cost-benefit analyses, and parties
who overlook ripe moments.

Each of these problems have variations, and the authors
describe many of the finer diagnoses which may be made. For
example, framing problems may be the result of muddled framing,
or attempts by one side to frame the other out of the picture, or
by unnecessary zero-sum framing.

Numerous useful techniques have been developed across the
field of conflict resolution for addressing particular problems.
However, the authors observe that transformative mediation's
techniques for fostering empowerment and recognition offer
particularly promising approaches to a wide variety of
destructive conflict dynamics.

Constructive Confrontation Compared to Transformative
Mediation

Constructive confrontation is similar to the transformative
approach in a number of ways. Both approaches emphasize fostering
constructive processes over achieving a final resolution of the
conflict. Both seek to improve and clarify parties'
understandings, both of themselves and the other parties. Both
approaches encourage parties to identify and focus on the most
important issues.

The goal of constructive confrontation is to help each party
develop an approach to the conflict at hand which will best serve
that party's interests, in light of their understanding of the
other parties involved, common justice, and fairness. This goal
is consistent with the transformative goals of empowerment and
recognition. Like the transformative view, constructive
confrontation's incremental approach sees conflict as an ongoing
process. Both approaches emphasize flexibility and responsiveness
to the needs of the particular situation. Finally, the authors
observe that "both stress the primacy of relationships or
community values over selfish values."[p. 320]

These two approaches also differ in significant ways. Unlike
transformative mediation, constructive confrontation does not
require third-party intervention, although a third-party may
facilitate. Also, constructive confrontation has been developed
primarily to address public policy conflicts, involving a number
of parties, issues, and options. Transformative mediation focuses
more on interpersonal disputes.

Constructive confrontation offers more structure than
transformative mediation, while retaining much of the flexibility
of the transformative approach. The constructive confrontation
approach offers relatively specific diagnostic possibilities and
similarly specific lists of treatment options.

Despite these differences, the two approaches do agree in
their basic goals. As Burgess and Burgess observe, "The
ultimate goal of both transformative mediation and constructive
confrontation is the constructive transformation of conflictual
relationships."[p. 321]